Political Posts

[Spekulatius]

The cost of new homes can come down by changing zoning - allowing for condos  and multi family homes where SFH only allowed before in desirable neighborhoods.

 

Another thing that crossed my mind is if we go full populist is that tax code changes pertaining to real estate tax and deductions will encourage multi family and discourages second home and investment properties especially the like of Blackstone buying up hundred thousands of SFH.

 

Even lassez fair counties like Singapore have a tax code that disincentivizes second homes for example with higher tax rate and transaction tax.

.

[Gregmal]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

When felt the future ever certain? 1980’s? 1990? 2001/2002 (9/11 and recession), 2008?

 

I think there are many periods where I felt much less certainty about the future than I have now.

 

The folks who think housing prices are too high should just rent for the time being since it’s way cheaper in many locations. The time to buy a house will come.

That’s true. When I started out Wall Street was dead, same with housing. And getting a job as a fairly run of the mill white kid? 
 

Now in hindsight I’m told it was easy to start off when I did or I was lucky or something along those lines…so who knows. Working hard typically tends to pay off regardless  

[dealraker]

19 hours ago, Gregmal said:

That’s true. When I started out Wall Street was dead, same with housing. And getting a job as a fairly run of the mill white kid? 
 

Now in hindsight I’m told it was easy to start off when I did or I was lucky or something along those lines…so who knows. Working hard typically tends to pay off regardless  

So along these lines I built the waterfront home I live in well over 40 years ago and with lot had $75k in it.  Today it would go for well over a mil.  Out of about 200 homes in this neighborhood?  Not a single one for sale on the waterfront today, none at all.  Could I get 2 mil?  Probably.

 

Yet...along the way there have been three times that I would have had doubts of getting $50k for the place, times when we had 40 homes for sale here with no offers - for long periods.

 

Back and forth we sway like branches in a tree.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by dealraker

[cwericb]

15 hours ago, Gregmal said:

That’s true. When I started out Wall Street was dead, same with housing. And getting a job as a fairly run of the mill white kid? 
 

Now in hindsight I’m told it was easy to start off when I did or I was lucky or something along those lines…so who knows. Working hard typically tends to pay off regardless  

 

Yeah, my kids tell me how easy I had it back in the 70s/80s because house prices were so 'affordable'.

 

What they fail to realize is that I was paying 17.5% interest on my mortgage at the time not 3 or 4%. And the normal amortization period was in general, 20 years, broken down into 5 year periods. At the end of each five years the mortgage would be renegotiated for another 5 years at whatever the going rate was. And none of the mortgage payment was tax deductible.

[Gregmal]

27 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Yeah, my kids tell me how easy I had it back in the 70s/80s because house prices were so 'affordable'.

 

What they fail to realize is that I was paying 17.5% interest on my mortgage at the time not 3 or 4%. And the normal amortization period was in general, 20 years, broken down into 5 year periods. At the end of each five years the mortgage would be renegotiated for another 5 years at whatever the going rate was. And none of the mortgage payment was tax deductible.

Yea so I think Speks assessment is accurate. Everything always seems easier and more obvious once we already know what happened. Just like “coulda just bought an index”. So I think the answer that is always correct is that if you’re not stupid, capable of working hard, and can demonstrate some character/loyalty to your craft, you’ll do well.

[Mephistopheles]

So I went down the rabbit hole reading up on Trumps fascism and am curious to see how it will end…

 

People blame GOP Congress people for not having a spine because most of them hate Trump behind closed doors. But can you blame them if they get death threats? Mitt Romney had to hire private security, obviously he is one of the few who can afford it. 
 

But perhaps the answer is getting everyone in Congress security protections which I think scotus judges get. Maybe trump can sign that into law! Haha
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/republicans-trump-threats

[Charlie]

Interesting opinion article from the Washington Post:

 

"Never before have we issued a joint public warning like this. But the profound, immediate and unprecedented threat that Kennedy’s policies and positions pose to the nation’s health cannot be ignored," reads the opinion piece published in The Washington Post.

It was authored by the Trump-appointed Jerome Adams, Richard Carmona, Joycelyn Elders, Vivek Murthy, Antonia Novello, and David Satcher and in it they accuse Kennedy of having “rejected science, misled the public and compromised the health of Americans.”

The Surgeon General is the leading spokesperson for public health in the American federal government and serves as the operational head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

The six Surgeons General accused Kennedy of ignoring health experts, destroying crucial health panels, and fueling toxic anti-science misinformation that has "eroded public trust" in HHS agencies including the CDC, FDA, and NIH. In the case of the CDC vaccine advisory panel, Kennedy fired the 17 members and stuffed their seats with people "who often lacked basic qualifications."

“Instead of combating the rapid spread of health misinformation with facts and clarity, Kennedy is amplifying it,” the former Surgeons General wrote.

They went on to slam RFK's efforts to push vaccine conspiracy theories about autism, his debunked claims about the HPV vaccine, and the fact that morale at HHS has become "badly damaged" under his stewardship with scientists feeling "silenced and sidelined."

"Repairing this damage requires a leader who respects scientific integrity and transparency, listens to experts and can restore trust to the federal health apparatus. Instead, Kennedy has become a driving force behind this crisis," they wrote.

The Surgeons General also pointed to Kennedy's utterly failed leadership amidst the "worst measles outbreak in more than 30 years" which resulted in "three preventable deaths and the first measles-related child death in the U.S. in over two decades."

"America’s public health systems are essential to the well-being of the nation," they continued. "We are clear-eyed about the fact that these systems need to be improved, including paying more attention to areas such as disease prevention, mental health and chronic illness. But reform must be grounded in truth, transparency and scientific evidence. Without this foundation, we risk not only halting progress but reversing it — costing lives in the process."

"Secretary Kennedy is entitled to his views. But he is not entitled to put people’s health at risk. He has rejected science, misled the public and compromised the health of Americans. The nation deserves a health and human services secretary who is committed to scientific integrity and can restore morale and trust in our public health agencies. Having served at senior levels in government, we know that politics are complicated. But this is bigger than politics. It’s about putting the health of Americans first," the Surgeons General concluded.

 

 

 

[nsx5200]

On 10/6/2025 at 2:41 PM, Red Lion said:

But I would summarize this article as, Gen Z can easily find a job and make 50% more than a boomer did in "inflation adjusted" terms. They can eat out, go on vacations, have cell phones, use air conditioning, etc.

Something smells fishy.  The underlying BoA report switches back-and-forth the use of data from global to US without clear demarcation.  I couldn't really find more raw data from BoA's claim "Gen Z will have globally amassed $36 trillion in income and that figure is expected to surge to $74 trillion by around 2040.(2)", where (2) is noted "BofA Global Research, Euromonitor"  The BoA's narrative seems to indicate that Gen Z's 8% salary growth from a single month in Feb. 2025 will carry all the way out to 2040, which I find questionable.  I'm not quite sure why the BoA report's trying so hard to construct such a narrative given how poor the implied data really is.  The biggest takeaway I got from the report is that a great wealth transfer is coming as the baby boomer dies off, and pass their wealth.  That I can agree with.  The questionable narrative in the BoA report that NYPost based off to construct their own biased sensational reporting makes me distrust the the NYPost narrative even more.  Not saying that the NY Post article is wrong, but I'd be wary to take their narrative at face value without questioning their motive.

 

Addendum:

I can't locate the exact quote from Charlie Munger, but I do agree that the young need to stop whining and just work hard.  Good stuff tends to follow good practices.

Edited October 8, 2025 by nsx5200
addendum

[LC]

3 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

I can't locate the exact quote from Charlie Munger, but I do agree that the young need to stop whining and just work hard.  Good stuff tends to follow good practices.

 

Said every aging generation ever...

 

This is not a comment directed at you, but I always see the older generations trivializing the younger generation's complaints. I think it's a reflection that older generations("we") have failed our future generations. 

 

We were once the younger generation...were we just as "lazy"? I don't think so...

[Castanza]

20 minutes ago, LC said:

Said every aging generation ever...

 

This is not a comment directed at you, but I always see the older generations trivializing the younger generation's complaints. I think it's a reflection that older generations("we") have failed our future generations.

"Show me the man generation and I'll show you the crime failure." 

 

In the same vein, every generation thinks theirs is better than the past ones. Just as trivializing...

 

 

20 minutes ago, LC said:

We were once the younger generation...were we just as "lazy"? I don't think so...

Every generation has different advantages and disadvantages. The winners adapt. People who don't, complain. 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Castanza

[Gregmal]

Everything always seems tough when you have no experience and are entering a new phase of life. Generally though, I’ve found that when things seem the scariest, that’s when the greatest opportunities exist. And when things seem easy, they’re either about to get really hard, or, you’ve figured it out. 
 

Kids today could start by getting off their phones and paying attention to the world around them instead of envying what’s presented to them on Instagram. 

[cubsfan]

8 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Everything always seems tough when you have no experience and are entering a new phase of life. Generally though, I’ve found that when things seem the scariest, that’s when the greatest opportunities exist. And when things seem easy, they’re either about to get really hard, or, you’ve figured it out. 
 

Kids today could start by getting off their phones and paying attention to the world around them instead of envying what’s presented to them on Instagram. 

 

Spoken like a parent with a real brain.  You're young, have your whole life ahead of you - get moving already.

[Red Lion]

6 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

I can't locate the exact quote from Charlie Munger, but I do agree that the young need to stop whining and just work hard.  Good stuff tends to follow good practices.

+1

 

There is lots of opportunity out there right now. Gen Z probably won't be so much different than any other generation, 20% of them will probably go on to do very well for themselves and probably have a better quality of life than previous generations due to advancements in technology and medicine. 

 

80% will essentially live paycheck to paycheck. 

 

I do think the odds of the other 80% buying a house are lower than in previous generations, but @Spekulatius is probably right that great buying opportunities will arise at some point, and the numbers may look better sometime in the future. Maybe when the baby boomer and Gen X houses finally hit the market.  

[73 Reds]

17 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

+1

 

There is lots of opportunity out there right now. Gen Z probably won't be so much different than any other generation, 20% of them will probably go on to do very well for themselves and probably have a better quality of life than previous generations due to advancements in technology and medicine. 

 

80% will essentially live paycheck to paycheck. 

 

I do think the odds of the other 80% buying a house are lower than in previous generations, but @Spekulatius is probably right that great buying opportunities will arise at some point, and the numbers may look better sometime in the future. Maybe when the baby boomer and Gen X houses finally hit the market.  

For 20 years after the GFC people got used to almost free money and ultra-low borrowing costs/mortgage rates.  None of that was normal and - no surprise - it drove up home prices.  We have now returned to a semblance of normalcy with borrowing costs.  People who generate an income and want to buy a home can buy a home.  As has always been the case, not necessarily the "forever home" they want and not necessarily in the ideal neighborhood they desire.  This generation of instant gratitude may have to put some of their desired gratification on hold just like all prior generations.        

[nsx5200]

3 hours ago, LC said:

Said every aging generation ever...

 

This is not a comment directed at you, but I always see the older generations trivializing the younger generation's complaints. I think it's a reflection that older generations("we") have failed our future generations. 

I bolded the most relevant word in your statement, and agree with you.  When the younger generation becomes old, they'll be saying the same thing.  More or less the same crap was said about Gen X, Millennials, and I'm sure the same thing was said about the boomers.  The older generation always complains that the younger generation is not like them enough, and the younger generation always complains that the older generation is out of date.  The truth is that every generation has their own challenges that they will eventually overcome that the previous generation hasn't met before.  C'est la vie.

 

I disagree w/ that older generations have failed our failed generations.  Living standard continue to improve, even though it might not seem so 'in-the-moment'.  Were there stuff that could've been done better?  "Of course", in hindsight.  A lot of stuff was advanced organically, messily, 'in-the-moment', and in hindsight, could've been done better.  Internet was one of those things 'back-in-the-day', and I'm fairly confident that AI will be one of the things that 'could be done better' 10-20 years from now.  Every advancement will incur some amount of slop that the future generation will need to go back and fix, but that leads to more opportunities(jobs) for people to work on in the future.  Every problem is an opportunity waiting for somebody to solve, many times with a huge bounty at the end.

 

We really should be looking at all the issues that Gen-Z is facing, and try to figure out who's solving it, if not solving it ourselves.

[Red Lion]

29 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

For 20 years after the GFC people got used to almost free money and ultra-low borrowing costs/mortgage rates.  None of that was normal and - no surprise - it drove up home prices.  We have now returned to a semblance of normalcy with borrowing costs.  People who generate an income and want to buy a home can buy a home.  As has always been the case, not necessarily the "forever home" they want and not necessarily in the ideal neighborhood they desire.  This generation of instant gratitude may have to put some of their desired gratification on hold just like all prior generations.        

 

I agree with all of this, and I'm not saying we need to have 3% mortgages again. 6% mortgages are very much average to low in the long scheme of things. For example mortgage rates were about the same as they are now pre-GFC.

 

My impression was that homes were significantly more expensive compared to median income today than they were pre GFC. I just looked this up, and I was wrong about this. It looks like they're a bit more expensive today than the early 2000s, but not by a lot. 

[73 Reds]

6 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

 

I agree with all of this, and I'm not saying we need to have 3% mortgages again. 6% mortgages are very much average to low in the long scheme of things. For example mortgage rates were about the same as they are now pre-GFC.

 

My impression was that homes were significantly more expensive compared to median income today than they were pre GFC. I just looked this up, and I was wrong about this. It looks like they're a bit more expensive today than the early 2000s, but not by a lot. 

It also depends on location.  You're in California, right?  25+ years ago I made frequent trips out there and was stupified by the cost of an 'average' home in the major cities compared to what the same home would cost in Florida's larger cities.    

[Red Lion]

13 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

It also depends on location.  You're in California, right?  25+ years ago I made frequent trips out there and was stupified by the cost of an 'average' home in the major cities compared to what the same home would cost in Florida's larger cities.    

 

Yes I am, and agreed that it very much depends on location. I've frequently looked at other markets I've been interested in and seen them get far more expensive, but I think the picture is much more favorable countrywide. There's a reason so many people leave California, and I'd probably do it myself if it weren't so hard to uproot. 

[cwericb]

What irritates me is the complaining from people would rather live in their parents basements or in social housing and bitch about not being able to find a job. And then they have the nerve to bitch that "Them immigrants are taking our jobs". They aren't taking your job dude because you wouldn't lower yourself to take that job in the first place because you think it is beneath you or it doesn't pay you what YOU think you are worth.  

 

I know a young Filipino lady who left her family of 3, including a one year old, back in the Philippines. They scraped up enough money for her to leave the comfort of her own surroundings to fly half way around to a new and foreign country, find a job and work her ass off, while living in a small apartment with several others from her country, and work at a fast food outlet. In her off time she and a friend cleaned houses and did other odd jobs and whatever they could to save up enough to bring her family over here. After two or three years she eventually saved enough money to bring the rest of her family to there new home. Today, with continued hard work she and her husband now own their own home and are both working, contributing members of society. And, that Filipino friend, is now the owner operator of a popular and successful Filipino restaurant. 

 

It will be interesting to see what the ramifications will be if the Pres is sucessful in running so many immigrants out of the country.

 

I had a guy come into my office once and start to bitch to me that he couldn't get a job because he couldn't live on the wages he was offered. He was quite insulted when I suggested he take a second job. "Well I shouldn't have to do that."

 

Sorry I am not more sympathetic but from the time I started university and for many years thereafter I always had some sort of second job, and a lot of the time, even a third income coming in. Now I know it can be a rude awakening for kids out on their own for the first time to find out that nobody is going to pay them what they think they are worth, but as the saying goes, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. And the sooner you do it the more successful you will be.  

Rant over.

[cubsfan]

37 minutes ago, cwericb said:

What irritates me is the complaining from people would rather live in their parents basements or in social housing and bitch about not being able to find a job. And then they have the nerve to bitch that "Them immigrants are taking our jobs". They aren't taking your job dude because you wouldn't lower yourself to take that job in the first place because you think it is beneath you or it doesn't pay you what YOU think you are worth.  

 

I know a young Filipino lady who left her family of 3, including a one year old, back in the Philippines. They scraped up enough money for her to leave the comfort of her own surroundings to fly half way around to a new and foreign country, find a job and work her ass off, while living in a small apartment with several others from her country, and work at a fast food outlet. In her off time she and a friend cleaned houses and did other odd jobs and whatever they could to save up enough to bring her family over here. After two or three years she eventually saved enough money to bring the rest of her family to there new home. Today, with continued hard work she and her husband now own their own home and are both working, contributing members of society. And, that Filipino friend, is now the owner operator of a popular and successful Filipino restaurant. 

 

It will be interesting to see what the ramifications will be if the Pres is sucessful in running so many immigrants out of the country.

 

I had a guy come into my office once and start to bitch to me that he couldn't get a job because he couldn't live on the wages he was offered. He was quite insulted when I suggested he take a second job. "Well I shouldn't have to do that."

 

Sorry I am not more sympathetic but from the time I started university and for many years thereafter I always had some sort of second job, and a lot of the time, even a third income coming in. Now I know it can be a rude awakening for kids out on their own for the first time to find out that nobody is going to pay them what they think they are worth, but as the saying goes, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. And the sooner you do it the more successful you will be.  

Rant over.

 

I think that's a great post and much admired tale of the immigrant. 

 

Just don't kid yourself about the Pres - his broad sweep is running out criminals first - which is working wonderfully on suppressing crime in this country.

His next focus will be to target those here illegally, which is largely why he was elected by Americans. Illegal immigration removal is now one of those 70/30 issues - and the number one issue why he was elected.

 

He's doing exactly what the voter wants. That's why we have elections - and certainly why the Democrats lost power of the Presidency, Senate and House.

[Cigarbutt]

1 hour ago, Red Lion said:

My impression was that homes were significantly more expensive compared to median income today than they were pre GFC. I just looked this up, and I was wrong about this. It looks like they're a bit more expensive today than the early 2000s, but not by a lot. 

Please provide evidence to support your last conclusion because your post made me think for a minute (from anecdotal to more 'macro').

-Anecdotal

We have offsrings (three) looking to buy houses these days in our typical suburban area in North America.

We bought our house in 1996 when i started out earning with a license, then a ratio of 0.8 for our quite typical housing price over starting earning power. Now, if i'd be starting out, this ratio has become 2.1. Our offsprings (quite Gen Z in type in many ways) face a similar present outcome although they did not have the opportunity to buy before they were born..

 

-Macro

-Additional comment since this is a political thread and taking into account some of the comments in other posts above

Do i need to tell them to stop whining? that they're lazy? or that they are lucky to have access to TikTok to compensate?

Edited October 8, 2025 by Cigarbutt
minor spelling mistakes

[Red Lion]

22 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

Please provide evidence to support your last conclusion because your post made me think for a minute (from anecdotal to more 'macro').

I just did a quick search for median household income to median sales price for 2025 vs 2006. I’d like to go dig into this figure more since I had thought we were at unprecedented levels on this metric. 

[Gregmal]

I mean you could also just buy them one...

[LC]

https://v.redd.it/70u31vegywtf1

 

Free speech: not to be confused with "free to not get shot in the head by ICE while exercising your free speech".  

[cwericb]

56 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

Please provide evidence to support your last conclusion because your post made me think for a minute (from anecdotal to more 'macro').

-Anecdotal

We have offsrings (three) looking to buy houses these days in our typical suburban area in North America.

We bought our house in 1996 when i started out earning with a license, then a ratio of 0.8 for our quite typical housing price over starting earning power. Now, if i'd be starting out, this ratio has become 2.1. Our offsprings (quite Gen Z in type in many ways) face a similar present outcome although they did not have the opportunity to buy before they were born..

 

-Macro

-Additional comment since this is a political thread and taking into account some of the comments in other posts above

Do i need to tell them to stop whining? that they're lazy? or that they are lucky to have access to TikTok to compensate?

 

No but you may need to explain a few things to them as I have had to with my own son who though I had it so much easier back then.

 

Here is where I think these comparisons are wrong. The chart compares Income to house prices. But the house price is only part of the cost of buying a home.

 

Most first time home buyers buy with a mortgage. Therefore, the real cost of buying a home is the home price PLUS the interest on the mortgage loan.

 

I had a house built for me in the late 70's early 80's and interest rates were nuts.. The Mortgage rate I paid for a while was 17.5%

(I believe things differ between Canada and the US, (Canadians get no tax break on mortgages, and the regular term was 5 years and renewable) 

 

So to make a fair comparison you have to take the :

PRICE of the house PLUS the interest paid or to be paid on the mortgage.

There is a vast cumulative difference between 17.5% and 3-4% today! 

 

So take those 1985 number on the chart and add 15-18% yearly on to the numbers. 

* Note, those interest rated did come down, but still they were much much higher than today.

 

Edited October 8, 2025 by cwericb